Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
On 17 Dec 2012, at 19:28, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: I thought it was the product of two quaternions that is non- commutative Yes, multiplication is non-commutative for quaternions and that its primary feature is handling rotations in 3d space. I don't know what you mean by primary feature but quaternions can be used for handling rotations in 3d space. That's correct. They are more efficient and natural to use than the usual linear rotations matrices. The applications in video-games has been improved a lot, strikingly for the amateur once the quaternions have been used. And that is true for the virtual, video-game- rotations, but also for the rotations of real satellites in space. The octonions get eventually applications around quantum gravity. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
On 17 Dec 2012, at 22:55, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/17/2012 2:15 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Is it possible to define a relative probability in the case where it is not possible to count or otherwise partition the members of the ensemble? Yes. relative probability is not necessarily a constructive notion. Dear Bruno, Is this not a confession that there is something fundamentally non-computable in the notion of a relative measure? I have always insisted on that non computability of the relative measure. Anyway, I start from comp and I deduce only (with some definitions). It is not like if we had any choice in the matter. I know about this from my study of the problem of the axiom of choice, but I would like to see your opinion on this. I don't do set theory. the axiom of choice is not needed. Not that I know of! If you know how, please explain this to me! Normally if you follow the UDA you might understand intuitively why the relative probability are a priori not constructive. So you can't use them in practice, but you still can use them to derive physics, notably because the case P = 1 can be handled at the proposition level through the logic of self-references (Bp Dt, p sigma_1). Was it not Penrose that was roundly criticized to claiming that there had to be something non-computable in physics? It seems that you might have proven his case! Indeed. Maudlin already, in psyche, shows that comp entails some conclusion by Penrose. Too bad Penrose derived then from non-comp. I go much further (faster!) and claim that this non-constructable aspect is the main reason why there cannot exist a pre-established harmony in the Laplacean sense of the universe. At first sight this is wrong for me, but you can try an argument. Comp assume arithmetic which can be seen as a pre-established harmony, but of course that term can get many other interpretations. Bruno -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
Hi Stephen P. King Leibniz simply assumed that the PEH existed. My followup was that at least for large groups of particles, not of small groups or 1, thermodynamincs is the PEH. In a way this makes sense, since God seems to act only on groups (such as killing all besides noah and his family in the Flood). And He lets the rain fall on the unjust as well as the just. Jesus acts on individuals, who must be judged individually. Quantum computing or logic possibly (???) could achieve the individual motions. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/18/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-17, 16:55:48 Subject: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God On 12/17/2012 2:15 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Is it possible to define a relative probability in the case where it is not possible to count or otherwise partition the members of the ensemble? Yes. relative probability is not necessarily a constructive notion. Dear Bruno, Is this not a confession that there is something fundamentally non-computable in the notion of a relative measure? I know about this from my study of the problem of the axiom of choice, but I would like to see your opinion on this. Not that I know of! If you know how, please explain this to me! Normally if you follow the UDA you might understand intuitively why the relative probability are a priori not constructive. So you can't use them in practice, but you still can use them to derive physics, notably because the case P = 1 can be handled at the proposition level through the logic of self-references (Bp Dt, p sigma_1). Was it not Penrose that was roundly criticized to claiming that there had to be something non-computable in physics? It seems that you might have proven his case! I go much further (faster!) and claim that this non-constructable aspect is the main reason why there cannot exist a pre-established harmony in the Laplacean sense of the universe. -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
On 12/18/2012 10:16 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Leibniz simply assumed that the PEH existed. My followup was that at least for large groups of particles, not of small groups or 1, thermodynamincs is the PEH. Dear Roger, I am OK with the idea that thermodynamics is the PEH, sure! In a way this makes sense, since God seems to act only on groups (such as killing all besides noah and his family in the Flood). And He lets the rain fall on the unjust as well as the just. Jesus acts on individuals, who must be judged individually. I see this as a shift from total global measures to local relative measures, where the latter looks at individuals defined in terms of equivalence classes, or Brunoesque 'substitution levels. Quantum computing or logic possibly (???) could achieve the individual motions. Yes. I would go further and claim that computing *is* the action (of motion of any kind). Quantum and classical are types of logic of the computations, in the former no copying is allowed and in the latter copying is demanded. -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
Hi Stephen P. King My dialectic from of mind comes from my studying Hegel long ago. And my simplifications come from analyzing the metaphors of the I Ching. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/17/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-11, 16:01:15 Subject: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God On 12/11/2012 9:33 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: Dear Roger, It's called an attempt at humor. I apologize if it didn't meet your standards: I am a learner in comedy, not a knower. A point here which puts my attempt at humor directly on topic: I ask myself whether everybody is a TOE? And is the ability to share that some measure for quality? By whose standards? Everybody breaks down the world into some set of primitives and looks at it through that lens + there is some truth to knowledge gleamed here, which can be shared and some that cannot. Monads, numbers, sense, quarks, humans, a great watch from descartes, the back of a turtle, and the plethora of new age perspectives and primitives: they might not obey the debatable laws of what constitutes an ontological, philosophical, or scientific argument... but if the bet is laid open and reasoning somewhat sincere, then I'll listen to a mystic over some dull philosopher or scientist and their linguistic labyrinths any day. I don't mind if they can express it formally or not. I raise the bar for TOE: not only must it address problems and be formally precise etc: It has to also be cool and have the gonads to laugh about itself. If we can't laugh at our own gods, then they are tyrants or rather grumpy. I make fun of my idiocy of seeing the world musically all the time. Roger, why would I want to attack what you hold dear? My reason for joking is much simpler than oedipal stuff: My Inbox reads Monads, Monads this, Monads that, but actually Monads this and so I joke about gonads and Leibniz biscuits in X-mas time that are everywhere in Germany. But if you need to make a Freudian oedipal diagnosis, then tell me at least what I have to gain by attacking the previous generation on an internet list? The answer is easier than attack: laughing is nice, so I try. Cowboy Hear Hear! -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Quantum theory must be based on complex variables and not real numbers or quaternions for example. Quaternions are used in Quantum Mechanics particularly when spin is involved and it's easy to see why. The real numbers are commutative but there are things in the physical world that are not, so to have a mathematical theory about them you need something, like quaternions, that are non-commutative just like the real world is. Sometimes the order in which something happens makes no difference, 2+4 =4 +2, but in physics sometimes the order is important, for example, turning a book 90 degrees around a vertical axis then 90 degrees around a horizontal axis produces a different result than turning it 90 degrees around a horizontal axis and then 90 degrees around a vertical axis. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 1:00 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Quantum theory must be based on complex variables and not real numbers or quaternions for example. Quaternions are used in Quantum Mechanics particularly when spin is involved and it's easy to see why. The real numbers are commutative but there are things in the physical world that are not, so to have a mathematical theory about them you need something, like quaternions, that are non-commutative just like the real world is. Sometimes the order in which something happens makes no difference, 2+4 =4 +2, but in physics sometimes the order is important, for example, turning a book 90 degrees around a vertical axis then 90 degrees around a horizontal axis produces a different result than turning it 90 degrees around a horizontal axis and then 90 degrees around a vertical axis. John K Clark I thought it was the product of two quaternions that is non-commutative and that its primary feature is handling rotations in 3d space. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: I thought it was the product of two quaternions that is non-commutative Yes, multiplication is non-commutative for quaternions and that its primary feature is handling rotations in 3d space. I don't know what you mean by primary feature but quaternions can be used for handling rotations in 3d space. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
On 16 Dec 2012, at 19:35, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/16/2012 5:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: [BM] Everett already show that such relative probabilities does not depend on the choice of the basis, nor on my place in the multiverse. [SPK] I strongly disagree with this statement! Everett showed the exact opposite; that relative probabilities completely depend of the choice of basis and framing. Prove? This is contrary to what Everett said, and I have try to contradict him on this, eventually he is right. Deustch tought like you but has eventually change its mind. There are no prefer basis, and with the CTM there are not even a prefer ontological theory. Dear Bruno, Is it possible to define a relative probability in the case where it is not possible to count or otherwise partition the members of the ensemble? Yes. relative probability is not necessarily a constructive notion. Not that I know of! If you know how, please explain this to me! Normally if you follow the UDA you might understand intuitively why the realtive probability are a priori not constructive. So you can't use them in practice, but you still can use them to derive physics, notably because the case P = 1 can be handled at the proposition level through the logic of self-references (Bp Dt, p sigma_1). Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
On 12/17/2012 1:28 PM, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com mailto:yann...@gmail.com wrote: I thought it was the product of two quaternions that is non-commutative Yes, multiplication is non-commutative for quaternions and that its primary feature is handling rotations in 3d space. I don't know what you mean by primary feature but quaternions can be used for handling rotations in 3d space. John K Clark Hi, Try 2-spinors, they are much more elegant. ;-) -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
On 12/17/2012 2:15 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Is it possible to define a relative probability in the case where it is not possible to count or otherwise partition the members of the ensemble? Yes. relative probability is not necessarily a constructive notion. Dear Bruno, Is this not a confession that there is something fundamentally non-computable in the notion of a relative measure? I know about this from my study of the problem of the axiom of choice, but I would like to see your opinion on this. Not that I know of! If you know how, please explain this to me! Normally if you follow the UDA you might understand intuitively why the relative probability are a priori not constructive. So you can't use them in practice, but you still can use them to derive physics, notably because the case P = 1 can be handled at the proposition level through the logic of self-references (Bp Dt, p sigma_1). Was it not Penrose that was roundly criticized to claiming that there had to be something non-computable in physics? It seems that you might have proven his case! I go much further (faster!) and claim that this non-constructable aspect is the main reason why there cannot exist a pre-established harmony in the Laplacean sense of the universe. -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
On 14 Dec 2012, at 22:44, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/14/2012 5:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Dec 2012, at 16:50, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:35 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: My prejudice is that the projection from dreams of the mind is to a unique physical universe rather than every possible one. On the contrary. It leads to many-dreams, and it is an open question if this leads to a multiverse, or a multi-multiverse, or a multi-multi- multiverse, etc. Is CTM capable of such a projection even if it is not Occam? CTM predicts it a priori. And it is OCCAM, in the sense that it is the simplest conceptual theory (just addition and multiplication of non negative integers). Bruno, I presume here you mean that CTM predicts many dreams a priori. OK. Many dreams, and the feeling to belong to only one dream/reality. Dear Bruno, You still do not see that to 'make sense' (yes, Craig's term!) of what you are saying, we have to take a complementary view. On one hand we have the imaginary god's view where All is One, With the CTM, arithmetic is enough. I don't think it is imaginary. and on the other hand we have the finite observer's actual view of there are many that I can see. That is what is made precise in the TOE *derived* from the CTM. Is the projection to one SWI universe and/or multiple MWI universes also predicted a priori? Yes. From the first person perspective. It predicts also the trace of the many (dreams/realities/worlds) once we look below our comp substitution level. The projection is no magic: it is like in the Moscow/Washington duplication. Once the copies open the reconstitution boxes, they can only observe Moscow OR Washington---exclusive OR. My concern is that consciousness is predicted at the many dreams stage before projection and that consciousness could decide (a risky term) on a single SWI physical universe with quantum probability. Well, CTM predicts this, but with the CTM probabilities, which are not yet well computed. If they differ from the QM probabilities, this would make CTM in difficulties. Does not this cry out for a discussion of the differences between probabilities and actualities? Not just a discussion, but an entire mathematical treatment, which has been done. In other words, the realm of many dreams contains all possible eigenfunctions at various amplitudes. But in my view, if all eigenfunctions become real in different physical worlds, the amplitude information is lost despite Deutsch's measure argument. That is, amplitude information is only conserved as frequency of events in a single physical world integrated over many trials. For Deutsch's argument to be correct the same many worlds eigenfunctions must exist in every universe of the multiverse, which in my mind makes the MWI multiverse an illusion. The many-worlds eigenfunctions can be addressed with the frequency operator of Graham, Preskill, and are indeed the same in all universe, even in the Harry Potter universe. Are not Harry Potter properties, properties that are mutually inconsistent? Not necessarily. QM is invariant in the multiverse. What does this mean, exactly? That the SWE and the Born rules applies everywhere, even in the Harry Potter universes, where it seems to not apply. Even if I find myself in a Harry Potter universe where I saw a billions particle in the 1/sqrt(2)(up + down) all the time being up, I have to bet on 1/2 for the next one. One thing that I would like to point out. We should not assume 'perfect information' of the ensemble of universes! Statistics are often interpreted as if the sample is a perfect representation of the ensemble. I see this as assuming a 'god's eye view' of all of the members of the ensemble that can: 1) simultaneously access all of the members and 2) compare them to each other instantly. This idea is a complete fantasy! Not in the CTM where you can use the math to make it precise. Everett already show that such relative probabilities does not depend on the choice of the basis, nor on my place in the multiverse. I strongly disagree with this statement! Everett showed the exact opposite; that relative probabilities completely depend of the choice of basis and framing. Prove? This is contrary to what Everett said, and I have try to contradict him on this, eventually he is right. Deustch tought like you but has eventually change its mind. There are no prefer basis, and with the CTM there are not even a prefer ontological theory. The main message of QM, how ever you may wish to interpret it is that there does not exist a preferred basis. That's my point. Especially without collapse. There are very strong number theoretic arguments that the every idea of a relative measure cannot exist in the absence of the selection of a
Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
On 12/16/2012 5:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: [BM] Everett already show that such relative probabilities does not depend on the choice of the basis, nor on my place in the multiverse. [SPK] I strongly disagree with this statement! Everett showed the exact opposite; that relative probabilities completely depend of the choice of basis and framing. Prove? This is contrary to what Everett said, and I have try to contradict him on this, eventually he is right. Deustch tought like you but has eventually change its mind. There are no prefer basis, and with the CTM there are not even a prefer ontological theory. Dear Bruno, Is it possible to define a relative probability in the case where it is not possible to count or otherwise partition the members of the ensemble? Not that I know of! If you know how, please explain this to me! -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
On 13 Dec 2012, at 16:50, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:35 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: My prejudice is that the projection from dreams of the mind is to a unique physical universe rather than every possible one. On the contrary. It leads to many-dreams, and it is an open question if this leads to a multiverse, or a multi-multiverse, or a multi-multi- multiverse, etc. Is CTM capable of such a projection even if it is not Occam? CTM predicts it a priori. And it is OCCAM, in the sense that it is the simplest conceptual theory (just addition and multiplication of non negative integers). Bruno, I presume here you mean that CTM predicts many dreams a priori. OK. Many dreams, and the feeling to belong to only one dream/reality. Is the projection to one SWI universe and/or multiple MWI universes also predicted a priori? Yes. From the first person perspective. It predicts also the trace of the many (dreams/realities/worlds) once we look below our comp substitution level. The projection is no magic: it is like in the Moscow/Washington duplication. Once the copies open the reconstitution boxes, they can only observe Moscow OR Washington---exclusive OR. My concern is that consciousness is predicted at the many dreams stage before projection and that consciousness could decide (a risky term) on a single SWI physical universe with quantum probability. Well, CTM predicts this, but with the CTM probabilities, which are not yet well computed. If they differ from the QM probabilities, this would make CTM in difficulties. In other words, the realm of many dreams contains all possible eigenfunctions at various amplitudes. But in my view, if all eigenfunctions become real in different physical worlds, the amplitude information is lost despite Deutsch's measure argument. That is, amplitude information is only conserved as frequency of events in a single physical world integrated over many trials. For Deutsch's argument to be correct the same many worlds eigenfunctions must exist in every universe of the multiverse, which in my mind makes the MWI multiverse an illusion. The many-worlds eigenfunctions can be addressed with the frequency operator of Graham, Preskill, and are indeed the same in all universe, even in the Harry Potter universe. QM is invariant in the multiverse. Even if I find myself in a Harry Potter universe where I saw a billions particle in the 1/sqrt(2)(up + down) all the time being up, I have to bet on 1/2 for the next one. Everett already show that such relative probabilities does not depend on the choice of the basis, nor on my place in the multiverse. With CTM you can say that the multiverse is an illusion: only (N, +, *) is real, and the multiverse itself is a construct of the mind of numbers to figure out the local arithmetical reality. But then the moon is also an illusion. There might also be clusters of different multiverses. We are only at the beginning of the exploration of arithmetic. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
On 12 Dec 2012, at 23:39, meekerdb wrote: On 12/12/2012 7:27 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Gödel used Principia Mathematica, and then a theory like PA can be shown essentially undecidable: adding axioms does not change incompleteness. That is why it applies to us, as far as we are correct. It does not apply to everyday reasoning, as this use a non monotonical theory, with a notion of updating our beliefs. Not all undecidable theory are essentially undecidable. Group theory is undecidable, but abelian group theory is decidable. Bruno, is there an general, meta-mathematical theory about what axioms will produce a decidable theory and which will not? I have never heard about a simple recipe. The decidability of the theory of abelian group has been shown by Wanda Szmielew (Arithmetical properties of Abelian Groups. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, 1950), see also Decision problem in group theory, Proceedings of the tenth International Congress of Philosophy, Amsterdam 1948). The undecidability of the elementary theory of group is proved by Tarski, and you can find it in the book (now Dover) Undecidable Theories, 2010. Tarski has also proved the decidability of the elementary (first order) theory of the reals (with the consequence that you cannot define the natural numbers from the reals with the real + and * laws). Natural numbers are logically more complex than the real numbers. Same with polynomial equations: undecidable with integers coefficients and unknown, but decidable on the reals. In the real, adding the trigonometric functions makes possible to define the natural numbers (by sinPIx = 0), and so the trigonometric functions reintroduce the undecidability. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
On 12/14/2012 5:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Dec 2012, at 16:50, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:35 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: My prejudice is that the projection from dreams of the mind is to a unique physical universe rather than every possible one. On the contrary. It leads to many-dreams, and it is an open question if this leads to a multiverse, or a multi-multiverse, or a multi-multi-multiverse, etc. Is CTM capable of such a projection even if it is not Occam? CTM predicts it a priori. And it is OCCAM, in the sense that it is the simplest conceptual theory (just addition and multiplication of non negative integers). Bruno, I presume here you mean that CTM predicts many dreams a priori. OK. Many dreams, and the feeling to belong to only one dream/reality. Dear Bruno, You still do not see that to 'make sense' (yes, Craig's term!) of what you are saying, we have to take a complementary view. On one hand we have the imaginary god's view where /All is One/, and on the other hand we have the finite observer's actual view of there are many that I can see. Is the projection to one SWI universe and/or multiple MWI universes also predicted a priori? Yes. From the first person perspective. It predicts also the trace of the many (dreams/realities/worlds) once we look below our comp substitution level. The projection is no magic: it is like in the Moscow/Washington duplication. Once the copies open the reconstitution boxes, they can only observe Moscow OR Washington---exclusive OR. My concern is that consciousness is predicted at the many dreams stage before projection and that consciousness could decide (a risky term) on a single SWI physical universe with quantum probability. Well, CTM predicts this, but with the CTM probabilities, which are not yet well computed. If they differ from the QM probabilities, this would make CTM in difficulties. Does not this cry out for a discussion of the differences between probabilities and actualities? In other words, the realm of many dreams contains all possible eigenfunctions at various amplitudes. But in my view, if all eigenfunctions become real in different physical worlds, the amplitude information is lost despite Deutsch's measure argument. That is, amplitude information is only conserved as frequency of events in a single physical world integrated over many trials. For Deutsch's argument to be correct the same many worlds eigenfunctions must exist in every universe of the multiverse, which in my mind makes the MWI multiverse an illusion. The many-worlds eigenfunctions can be addressed with the frequency operator of Graham, Preskill, and are indeed the same in all universe, even in the Harry Potter universe. Are not Harry Potter properties, properties that are mutually inconsistent? QM is invariant in the multiverse. What does this mean, exactly? Even if I find myself in a Harry Potter universe where I saw a billions particle in the 1/sqrt(2)(up + down) all the time being up, I have to bet on 1/2 for the next one. One thing that I would like to point out. We should not assume 'perfect information' of the ensemble of universes! Statistics are often interpreted as if the sample is a perfect representation of the ensemble. I see this as assuming a 'god's eye view' of all of the members of the ensemble that can: 1) simultaneously access all of the members and 2) compare them to each other instantly. This idea is a complete fantasy! Everett already show that such relative probabilities does not depend on the choice of the basis, nor on my place in the multiverse. I strongly disagree with this statement! Everett showed the exact opposite; that relative probabilities completely depend of the choice of basis and framing. The main message of QM, how ever you may wish to interpret it is that there does not exist a preferred basis. There are very strong number theoretic arguments that the every idea of a relative measure cannot exist in the absence of the selection of a particular basis and framing (aka 'point of view'). With CTM you can say that the multiverse is an illusion: only (N, +, *) is real, and the multiverse itself is a construct of the mind of numbers to figure out the local arithmetical reality. But then the moon is also an illusion. Sure, it is an illusion, but it an illusion that we can all agree upon and thus behave as if it where not. There might also be clusters of different multiverses. We are only at the beginning of the exploration of arithmetic. Indeed! You need to consider the idea that arithmetic can encode multiverses that are not composable into single Boolean representations. Have you any experience with the work that is required to debug a computer program? Given the set of all possible computer programs, how does one consider whether or not a pair of programs are
Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
On 12 Dec 2012, at 20:03, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 12 Dec 2012, at 16:27, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: snip This means literally that if the theory below (A, B, C, ... J) is correct A, B, C ..., J have to be theorem in arithmetic (and some definition *in* arithmetic). Agreed OK. Here from Davies 2005 is what I consider to be appropriate ST axioms: http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/1292538/1342351251/name/0602420v1.pdf A. The universes are described by quantum mechanics. B. Space has an integer number of dimensions. There is one dimension of time. C. Spacetime has a causal structure described by pseudo-Riemannian geometry. D. There exists a universe-generating mechanism subject to some form of transcendent physical law. E. Physics involves an optimization principle (e.g. an action principle) leading to well defined laws, at least at relatively low energy. F.The multiverse and its constituent universes are described by mathematics. G.The mathematical operations involve computable functions and standard logic. H.There are well-defined “states of the world” that have properties which may be specified mathematically. I. The basic physical laws, and the underlying principle/s from which they derive, are independent of the states. J. At least one universe contains observers, whose observations include sets of rational numbers that are related to the (more general) mathematical objects describing the universe by a specific and restricted projection rule, which is also mathematical. I do not claim the ability to defend all these axioms or even understand them all for that matter. But I think a little more needs to be said about A. Quantum theory must be based on complex variables and not real numbers or quaternions for example. Again from Davies 2005 In addition, one can consider describing states in a space defined over different fields, such as the reals (Stueckelberg, 1960) or the quaternions (Adler, 1995) rather than the complex numbers. These alternative schemes possess distinctly different properties. For example, if entanglement is defined in terms of rebits rather than qubits, then states that are separable in the former case may not be separable in the latter (Caves, Fuchs and Rungta (2001) “Entanglement of formation of an arbitrary state of two rebits,” Found. of Physics Letts. 14, 199.,2001). And as I recently learned, in quantum information theory, Negative quantum entropy can be traced back to “conditional” density matrices which admit eigenvalues larger than unity for quantum entangled systems (http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9610005v1.pdf). It is not clear that your simple arithmetic axioms can derive complex variables, UDA is a proof that IF ctm is correct, then, if complex variable are unavoidable, this has to be justified in term of machine's psychology, that is in term of number relative selmf-reference. Same for all other axioms. My point is that universes based on real numbers and/or quaternions, etc., are perhaps also unavoidable. Is that so?...part of the infinities of infinities? Real numbers are unavoidable, and in my opinion, we will need the octonions, and other non associative algebra. But it is too early to introduce them. It will depends on the extension of the material hypostases in the first order modal logical level. You can see this as a poisonous gift of computer science. With comp the fundamental science has to backtrack to Plato if not Pythagorus, in some way. The physical universes are projections made by dreaming numbers, to put things shortly. My prejudice is that the projection from dreams of the mind is to a unique physical universe rather than every possible one. On the contrary. It leads to many-dreams, and it is an open question if this leads to a multiverse, or a multi-multiverse, or a multi-multi- multiverse, etc. Is CTM capable of such a projection even if it is not Occam? CTM predicts it a priori. And it is OCCAM, in the sense that it is the simplest conceptual theory (just addition and multiplication of non negative integers). Yet it works up to now. We already have evidences that comp (CTM) will lead to the axioms A. But may be it will take a billions years to get the Higgs boson (in case it exists). If so, the billions of years, I prefer to start with the ST axioms and some experimental properties, like of BEC and physical constants, and like you see what their consequences are. No problems with this. I try to put light on the mind body problem, not on application. My point is technical: IF comp is correct, then physics is not the fundamental science. Physics is reducible to arithmetic, like today biochemistry can be said reducible to physics. I have no problem with physics being reducible. But I question
Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:35 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: My prejudice is that the projection from dreams of the mind is to a unique physical universe rather than every possible one. On the contrary. It leads to many-dreams, and it is an open question if this leads to a multiverse, or a multi-multiverse, or a multi-multi-multiverse, etc. Is CTM capable of such a projection even if it is not Occam? CTM predicts it a priori. And it is OCCAM, in the sense that it is the simplest conceptual theory (just addition and multiplication of non negative integers). Bruno, I presume here you mean that CTM predicts many dreams a priori. Is the projection to one SWI universe and/or multiple MWI universes also predicted a priori? My concern is that consciousness is predicted at the many dreams stage before projection and that consciousness could decide (a risky term) on a single SWI physical universe with quantum probability. In other words, the realm of many dreams contains all possible eigenfunctions at various amplitudes. But in my view, if all eigenfunctions become real in different physical worlds, the amplitude information is lost despite Deutsch's measure argument. That is, amplitude information is only conserved as frequency of events in a single physical world integrated over many trials. For Deutsch's argument to be correct the same many worlds eigenfunctions must exist in every universe of the multiverse, which in my mind makes the MWI multiverse an illusion. Richard -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
On 10 Dec 2012, at 19:03, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Richard, On 10 Dec 2012, at 16:17, Richard Ruquist wrote: Roger Bruno, How is consciousness related to god? It seems like the beginning of an infinite god regression. God = Truth (Plato). OK? With the CTM, arithmetical truth is enough (and a tiny provable part is enough for the ontology). I would say that consciousness is a form of knowledge. Knowledge intersects belief and truth. (It is a private undefinable notion, with CTM). The knower in you is the inner God, which is God restricted by the universal window of your brain/body. I don't know if God (truth) is conscious, but without God (truth) I doubt I could be conscious, even if most of the content of my consciousness is wrong (except on the indubitable fixed point, and perhaops the sharablke oart of math, arithmetic, perhaps). I have no certainties, and that is why I use the arithmetical translation of Plotinus in such conversation, with God = Arithmetical Truth Believable = (sigma_1) provable = universal (Löbian) machine Knowable = the same, but true (unlike proved) = the inner god = the universal soul intelligible matter = the same as 'believable, but together with consistence sensible matter = the same as intelligible matter, but as true That gives eight modalities, as they divided by incompleteness (except God and the Soul). If Gödel's incompleteness theorem was wrong, all those modalities would collapse. Despite the modalities extension is the same set of arithmetical propositions, the machine cannot knows that, and this change drastically the logic of the modalities. Roughly speaking, God obeys classical logic, the Universal Soul obeys intuitionist logic, and the two matters obeys (different) quantum logics, perhaps even linear (with some luck!) Bruno, thanks. That helps alot. In case you have not already guessed I am trying to marry CTM, string theory and monadology/Indra'sJewels, in order to improve my paper on incompletenes/consciousness: http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf This will work only if you derived the axioms of string theory from arithmetic, unless your theory contradicts the comp or CTM theory. I am not sure why you single out Peano Arithmetic in your paper. Logician use Peano Arithmetic like biologist use the bacterium Escherichia Coli, as a good represent of a very simple Löbian theory. Gödel used Principia Mathematica, and then a theory like PA can be shown essentially undecidable: adding axioms does not change incompleteness. That is why it applies to us, as far as we are correct. It does not apply to everyday reasoning, as this use a non monotonical theory, with a notion of updating our beliefs. Not all undecidable theory are essentially undecidable. Group theory is undecidable, but abelian group theory is decidable. Bruno Richard On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 10 Dec 2012, at 14:33, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King God is what/who is looking through the supreme monad, not the supreme monad itself. Nice! Even closer to CTM(*): God is what/who is looking through the supreme monads, not any supreme monad itself. Bruno (*) Alias comp, digital mechanism, CTM is for Computationalist Theory of Mind, and the yes doctor + Church thesis is among the weakest assumptions. CTM acronym might be better than comp to avoid confusion with computationalist physicalism (digital physics, DP) which is sometimes confused with comp. I have often explain why Digital Physics is self-contradictory (or made us into zombie, eliminate consciousness and first person). [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/10/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-09, 13:05:26 Subject: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God On 12/9/2012 7:54 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Roger, The monads are collectively god Dear Roger and Richard, This is what I have come to believe about Monads as well. They are collectively God, they do not have an absolute hierarchy. Their relation is more like what we see in a neural network That's is likely what Newton would believe and most likely what Liebnitz really believed in but was afraid to express. Richard On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Newton believed in numbers but was still a christian. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/9/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy You're forgiven. You're too smart to lose. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/12/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-11, 09:33:22 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God Dear Roger, It's called an attempt at humor. I apologize if it didn't meet your standards: I am a learner in comedy, not a knower. A point here which puts my attempt at humor directly on topic: I ask myself whether everybody is a TOE? And is the ability to share that some measure for quality? By whose standards? Everybody breaks down the world into some set of primitives and looks at it through that lens + there is some truth to knowledge gleamed here, which can be shared and some that cannot. Monads, numbers, sense, quarks, humans, a great watch from descartes, the back of a turtle, and the plethora of new age perspectives and primitives: they might not obey the debatable laws of what constitutes an ontological, philosophical, or scientific argument... but if the bet is laid open and reasoning somewhat sincere, then I'll listen to a mystic over some dull philosopher or scientist and their linguistic labyrinths any day. I don't mind if they can express it formally or not. I raise the bar for TOE: not only must it address problems and be formally precise etc: It has to also be cool and have the gonads to laugh about itself. If we can't laugh at our own gods, then they are tyrants or rather grumpy. I make fun of my idiocy of seeing the world musically all the time. Roger, why would I want to attack what you hold dear? My reason for joking is much simpler than oedipal stuff: My Inbox reads Monads, Monads this, Monads that, but actually Monads this and so I joke about gonads and Leibniz biscuits in X-mas time that are everywhere in Germany. But if you need to make a Freudian oedipal diagnosis, then tell me at least what I have to gain by attacking the previous generation on an internet list? The answer is easier than attack: laughing is nice, so I try. Cowboy On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy Every new generation attacks what the previous generation holds dear. Freud explained that in his theory of the Oedipal complex. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/11/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-10, 09:43:52 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God Hi Roger, On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Leibniz expressed what was logically necessary, not an opinion of God. And this itself was an opinion of god and produced a striking revelation in Leibniz: Contradiction. I have kicked my own monadology in its supreme gonad. This produced a depression and he went shopping for a new wig, asking himself: : How will people in a few hundred years remember my go... uhm... monads? This depression did not subside until Craig showed up as a Doctor from the future in a time machine called weak comp, yes I get it, but will never admit sense cannot be primitive because it is always relative, unlike the number I II III and so on. But because Craig is a nice guy and could sense, in perfect Jedi-scientific manner, a disturbance in the Leibnizean senso-motoricyclical-gonadial force. He took the time machine he hates to use and dressed as a doctor from the future. He then met Leibniz, wearing a wig made from a soulless Lion (just chemical copy for appearance sake, above the soul substitution level for lions), which impressed and intimidated Leibniz and his budget Target goat hair wig so much, that he had an epiphany and stepped into a comp compliant time teleportation system, trusted the doctor Craig about the substitution level, and flew to the future to extort the CEO of the Bahlsen cookie company in Hanover: If you don't make chocolate cooki...uh...monads with precisely 52 rounded edges, and name them after me, then my intimidating goat wig with all its logical implications will bore you to death, kicking you in the metaphysical monads of the gonads, hmmkay? Needless to say, with history in view, the CEO complied. Thus today, any person and child in Germany with two Euros can walk into most stores and buy himself 12 monads with 52 rounded gonad edges each. They continuously enable a more joyous Christmas time sharing of precious moments with the hated loved ones of many Germans. The monads appease the family feuds with 52 gonads each, topped with some chocolate. If you doubt the scientific validity of this story, then just behold my proof: https://www.google.com/search?q=leibniz+cookieshl=enclient
Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
especially concerning entanglement, which is an essential feature of my approach to resolving the paradox between MWI and SWI. BTW I consider MWI to apply to the mental realm and SWI to apply to the physical realm in a mind/brain duality with the two realms being connected by BEC entanglement. I am not sure why you single out Peano Arithmetic in your paper. Logician use Peano Arithmetic like biologist use the bacterium Escherichia Coli, as a good represent of a very simple Löbian theory. I singled out PA because that was the limit of what I knew of Godel's math at the time that I wrote that paper two years ago. Gödel used Principia Mathematica, and then a theory like PA can be shown essentially undecidable: adding axioms does not change incompleteness. That is why it applies to us, as far as we are correct. It does not apply to everyday reasoning, as this use a non monotonical theory, with a notion of updating our beliefs. Not all undecidable theory are essentially undecidable. Group theory is undecidable, but abelian group theory is decidable. Bruno At the time that I wrote that paper, I considered to step from Godel's incompleteness of consistent discrete real number systems to consciousness to be a 'leap of faith'. Since becoming a little familiar with your CTM, I have not been able to discern if you make the same leap or not. Can you help me here? Thanks, Richard Richard On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 10 Dec 2012, at 14:33, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King God is what/who is looking through the supreme monad, not the supreme monad itself. Nice! Even closer to CTM(*): God is what/who is looking through the supreme monads, not any supreme monad itself. Bruno (*) Alias comp, digital mechanism, CTM is for Computationalist Theory of Mind, and the yes doctor + Church thesis is among the weakest assumptions. CTM acronym might be better than comp to avoid confusion with computationalist physicalism (digital physics, DP) which is sometimes confused with comp. I have often explain why Digital Physics is self-contradictory (or made us into zombie, eliminate consciousness and first person). [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/10/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-09, 13:05:26 Subject: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God On 12/9/2012 7:54 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Roger, The monads are collectively god Dear Roger and Richard, This is what I have come to believe about Monads as well. They are collectively God, they do not have an absolute hierarchy. Their relation is more like what we see in a neural network That's is likely what Newton would believe and most likely what Liebnitz really believed in but was afraid to express. Richard On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Newton believed in numbers but was still a christian. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/9/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from
Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
Hi Bruno and Richard, I prefer not to refer to consciousness other than it simply being the action by the observer of perception, true or not. God or the One, who/which are at the end of the chain of events. Consciousness is overtly like an eye looking into a telescope or microscope. Firstness, raw perception. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/12/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-10, 11:42:13 Subject: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God Richard, On 10 Dec 2012, at 16:17, Richard Ruquist wrote: Roger Bruno, How is consciousness related to god? It seems like the beginning of an infinite god regression. God = Truth (Plato). OK? With the CTM, arithmetical truth is enough (and a tiny provable part is enough for the ontology). I would say that consciousness is a form of knowledge. Knowledge intersects belief and truth. (It is a private undefinable notion, with CTM). The knower in you is the inner God, which is God restricted by the universal window of your brain/body. I don't know if God (truth) is conscious, but without God (truth) I doubt I could be conscious, even if most of the content of my consciousness is wrong (except on the indubitable fixed point, and perhaops the sharablke oart of math, arithmetic, perhaps). I have no certainties, and that is why I use the arithmetical translation of Plotinus in such conversation, with God = Arithmetical Truth Believable = (sigma_1) provable = universal (L?ian) machine Knowable = the same, but true (unlike proved) = the inner god = the universal soul intelligible matter = the same as 'believable, but together with consistence sensible matter = the same as intelligible matter, but as true That gives eight modalities, as they divided by incompleteness (except God and the Soul). If G?el's incompleteness theorem was wrong, all those modalities would collapse. Despite the modalities extension is the same set of arithmetical propositions, the machine cannot knows that, and this change drastically the logic of the modalities. Roughly speaking, God obeys classical logic, the Universal Soul obeys intuitionist logic, and the two matters obeys (different) quantum logics, perhaps even linear (with some luck!) Bruno Richard On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 10 Dec 2012, at 14:33, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King God is what/who is looking through the supreme monad, not the supreme monad itself. Nice! Even closer to CTM(*): God is what/who is looking through the supreme monads, not any supreme monad itself. Bruno (*) Alias comp, digital mechanism, CTM is for Computationalist Theory of Mind, and the yes doctor + Church thesis is among the weakest assumptions. CTM acronym might be better than comp to avoid confusion with computationalist physicalism (digital physics, DP) which is sometimes confused with comp. I have often explain why Digital Physics is self-contradictory (or made us into zombie, eliminate consciousness and first person). [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/10/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-09, 13:05:26 Subject: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God On 12/9/2012 7:54 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Roger, The monads are collectively god Dear Roger and Richard, This is what I have come to believe about Monads as well. They are collectively God, they do not have an absolute hierarchy. Their relation is more like what we see in a neural network That's is likely what Newton would believe and most likely what Liebnitz really believed in but was afraid to express. Richard On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Newton believed in numbers but was still a christian. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/9/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal
Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 12 Dec 2012, at 16:27, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: snip This means literally that if the theory below (A, B, C, ... J) is correct A, B, C ..., J have to be theorem in arithmetic (and some definition *in* arithmetic). Agreed Here from Davies 2005 is what I consider to be appropriate ST axioms: http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/1292538/1342351251/name/0602420v1.pdf A. The universes are described by quantum mechanics. B. Space has an integer number of dimensions. There is one dimension of time. C. Spacetime has a causal structure described by pseudo-Riemannian geometry. D. There exists a universe-generating mechanism subject to some form of transcendent physical law. E. Physics involves an optimization principle (e.g. an action principle) leading to well defined laws, at least at relatively low energy. F.The multiverse and its constituent universes are described by mathematics. G.The mathematical operations involve computable functions and standard logic. H.There are well-defined “states of the world” that have properties which may be specified mathematically. I. The basic physical laws, and the underlying principle/s from which they derive, are independent of the states. J. At least one universe contains observers, whose observations include sets of rational numbers that are related to the (more general) mathematical objects describing the universe by a specific and restricted projection rule, which is also mathematical. I do not claim the ability to defend all these axioms or even understand them all for that matter. But I think a little more needs to be said about A. Quantum theory must be based on complex variables and not real numbers or quaternions for example. Again from Davies 2005 In addition, one can consider describing states in a space defined over different fields, such as the reals (Stueckelberg, 1960) or the quaternions (Adler, 1995) rather than the complex numbers. These alternative schemes possess distinctly different properties. For example, if entanglement is defined in terms of rebits rather than qubits, then states that are separable in the former case may not be separable in the latter (Caves, Fuchs and Rungta (2001) “Entanglement of formation of an arbitrary state of two rebits,” Found. of Physics Letts. 14, 199.,2001). And as I recently learned, in quantum information theory, Negative quantum entropy can be traced back to “conditional” density matrices which admit eigenvalues larger than unity for quantum entangled systems (http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9610005v1.pdf). It is not clear that your simple arithmetic axioms can derive complex variables, UDA is a proof that IF ctm is correct, then, if complex variable are unavoidable, this has to be justified in term of machine's psychology, that is in term of number relative selmf-reference. Same for all other axioms. My point is that universes based on real numbers and/or quaternions, etc., are perhaps also unavoidable. Is that so?...part of the infinities of infinities? You can see this as a poisonous gift of computer science. With comp the fundamental science has to backtrack to Plato if not Pythagorus, in some way. The physical universes are projections made by dreaming numbers, to put things shortly. My prejudice is that the projection from dreams of the mind is to a unique physical universe rather than every possible one. Is CTM capable of such a projection even if it is not Occam? Yet it works up to now. We already have evidences that comp (CTM) will lead to the axioms A. But may be it will take a billions years to get the Higgs boson (in case it exists). If so, the billions of years, I prefer to start with the ST axioms and some experimental properties, like of BEC and physical constants, and like you see what their consequences are. My point is technical: IF comp is correct, then physics is not the fundamental science. Physics is reducible to arithmetic, like today biochemistry can be said reducible to physics. I have no problem with physics being reducible. But I question if some aspects of physics like dimension is reducible to arithmetic. and if they can then the resulting universes seem not to have unique properties especially concerning entanglement, which is an essential feature of my approach to resolving the paradox between MWI and SWI. BTW I consider MWI to apply to the mental realm and SWI to apply to the physical realm in a mind/brain duality with the two realms being connected by BEC entanglement. I really love BEC, as they help to make concrete the quantum topological computer of Friedman and Kitaev. I like condensed matter physics a lot. It explains how some part of the quantum reality are literally quantum universal dovetailer already. I think that the primes numbers in
Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
On 12/12/2012 7:27 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 10 Dec 2012, at 19:03, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Richard, On 10 Dec 2012, at 16:17, Richard Ruquist wrote: Roger Bruno, How is consciousness related to god? It seems like the beginning of an infinite god regression. God = Truth (Plato). OK? With the CTM, arithmetical truth is enough (and a tiny provable part is enough for the ontology). I would say that consciousness is a form of knowledge. Knowledge intersects belief and truth. (It is a private undefinable notion, with CTM). The knower in you is the inner God, which is God restricted by the universal window of your brain/body. I don't know if God (truth) is conscious, but without God (truth) I doubt I could be conscious, even if most of the content of my consciousness is wrong (except on the indubitable fixed point, and perhaops the sharablke oart of math, arithmetic, perhaps). I have no certainties, and that is why I use the arithmetical translation of Plotinus in such conversation, with God = Arithmetical Truth Believable = (sigma_1) provable = universal (Löbian) machine Knowable = the same, but true (unlike proved) = the inner god = the universal soul intelligible matter = the same as 'believable, but together with consistence sensible matter = the same as intelligible matter, but as true That gives eight modalities, as they divided by incompleteness (except God and the Soul). If Gödel's incompleteness theorem was wrong, all those modalities would collapse. Despite the modalities extension is the same set of arithmetical propositions, the machine cannot knows that, and this change drastically the logic of the modalities. Roughly speaking, God obeys classical logic, the Universal Soul obeys intuitionist logic, and the two matters obeys (different) quantum logics, perhaps even linear (with some luck!) Bruno, thanks. That helps alot. In case you have not already guessed I am trying to marry CTM, string theory and monadology/Indra'sJewels, in order to improve my paper on incompletenes/consciousness: http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf This will work only if you derived the axioms of string theory from arithmetic, unless your theory contradicts the comp or CTM theory. First of all, your request seems to contradict the definition of axiom to claim that they should be derived from arithmetic (meaning CTM I suppose). Here from Davies 2005 is what I consider to be appropriate ST axioms: http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/1292538/1342351251/name/0602420v1.pdf A. The universes are described by quantum mechanics. B. Space has an integer number of dimensions. There is one dimension of time. C. Spacetime has a causal structure described by pseudo-Riemannian geometry. D. There exists a universe-generating mechanism subject to some form of transcendent physical law. E. Physics involves an optimization principle (e.g. an action principle) leading to well defined laws, at least at relatively low energy. F.The multiverse and its constituent universes are described by mathematics. G.The mathematical operations involve computable functions and standard logic. H.There are well-defined “states of the world” that have properties which may be specified mathematically. I. The basic physical laws, and the underlying principle/s from which they derive, are independent of the states. J. At least one universe contains observers, whose observations include sets of rational numbers that are related to the (more general) mathematical objects describing the universe by a specific and restricted projection rule, which is also mathematical. I do not claim the ability to defend all these axioms This bespeaks a confusion. Axioms are mathematical assumptions. You don't have to defend them; you assume them and build a model on them. Then you see if your model is consistent with the know facts (if not, too bad) and does it successfully predict some new facts (if so, great!). or even understand them all for that matter. But I think a little more needs to be said about A. Quantum theory must be based on complex variables and not real numbers or quaternions for example. I don't see how you can rule out quaternions, or even octonions, since they include complex numbers. Again from Davies 2005 In addition, one can consider describing states in a space defined over different fields, such as the reals (Stueckelberg, 1960) or the quaternions (Adler, 1995) rather than the complex numbers. These alternative schemes possess distinctly different properties. For example, if entanglement is defined in terms of rebits rather than qubits, then states that are separable in the former case may not be separable in the latter (Caves, Fuchs and Rungta (2001) “Entanglement of formation of an arbitrary state of two rebits,” Found. of Physics Letts. 14, 199.,2001). And as I recently
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy Every new generation attacks what the previous generation holds dear. Freud explained that in his theory of the Oedipal complex. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/11/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-10, 09:43:52 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God Hi Roger, On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Leibniz expressed what was logically necessary, not an opinion of God. And this itself was an opinion of god and produced a striking revelation in Leibniz: Contradiction. I have kicked my own monadology in its supreme gonad. This produced a depression and he went shopping for a new wig, asking himself: : How will people in a few hundred years remember my go... uhm... monads? This depression did not subside until Craig showed up as a Doctor from the future in a time machine called weak comp, yes I get it, but will never admit sense cannot be primitive because it is always relative, unlike the number I II III and so on. But because Craig is a nice guy and could sense, in perfect Jedi-scientific manner, a disturbance in the Leibnizean senso-motoricyclical-gonadial force. He took the time machine he hates to use and dressed as a doctor from the future.? He then met Leibniz, wearing a wig made from a soulless Lion (just chemical copy for appearance sake, above the soul substitution level for lions), which impressed and intimidated Leibniz and his budget Target goat hair wig so much, that he had an epiphany and stepped into a comp compliant time teleportation system, trusted the doctor Craig about the substitution level, and flew to the future to extort the CEO of the Bahlsen cookie company in Hanover: If you don't make chocolate cooki...uh...monads with precisely 52 rounded edges, and name them after me, then my intimidating goat wig with all its logical implications will bore you to death, kicking you in the metaphysical monads of the gonads, hmmkay? Needless to say, with history in view, the CEO complied. Thus today, any person and child in Germany with two Euros can walk into most stores and buy himself 12 monads with 52 rounded gonad edges each. They continuously enable a more joyous Christmas time sharing of precious moments with the hated loved ones of many Germans. The monads appease the family feuds with 52 gonads each, topped with some chocolate. If you doubt the scientific validity of this story, then just behold my proof: https://www.google.com/search?q=leibniz+cookieshl=enclient=firefox-ahs=IVQtbo=urls=org.mozilla:en-US:officialtbm=ischsource=univsa=Xei=_fPFUOvxF4mShge_nYHYDgved=0CDsQsAQbiw=1920bih=1034 Good winter/holiday season to everyone who is not a monadahole. Shitakefunshrooms, Cowboy ? ? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/10/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen ? - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-09, 07:54:53 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God Roger, The monads are collectively god That's is likely what Newton would believe and most likely what Liebnitz really believed in but was afraid to express. Richard On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Newton believed in numbers but was still a christian. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/9/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-08, 08:48:59 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God Roger, Comp or even just Peano arithmetic suggests that the monads do not need a god outside of themselves. Richard On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Referring as I did sometimes to the supreme monad as God was not technically correct, only a shorthand version. L's God is who/what perceives and does through the supreme monad. L's God is itself therefore not a monad, it's simply cosmic intelligence or the One. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/8/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-08, 07:49:27 Subject: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God Roger, In order to get a cosmic consciousness, an arithmetic of monads is required. No one monad has consciousness as L has said. Therefore isince God is one monad, it cannot be conscious and IMO therefore cannot be god. Richard On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist You say, God is the totality of all Monads
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
Dear Roger, It's called an attempt at humor. I apologize if it didn't meet your standards: I am a learner in comedy, not a knower. A point here which puts my attempt at humor directly on topic: I ask myself whether everybody is a TOE? And is the ability to share that some measure for quality? By whose standards? Everybody breaks down the world into some set of primitives and looks at it through that lens + there is some truth to knowledge gleamed here, which can be shared and some that cannot. Monads, numbers, sense, quarks, humans, a great watch from descartes, the back of a turtle, and the plethora of new age perspectives and primitives: they might not obey the debatable laws of what constitutes an ontological, philosophical, or scientific argument... but if the bet is laid open and reasoning somewhat sincere, then I'll listen to a mystic over some dull philosopher or scientist and their linguistic labyrinths any day. I don't mind if they can express it formally or not. I raise the bar for TOE: not only must it address problems and be formally precise etc: It has to also be cool and have the gonads to laugh about itself. If we can't laugh at our own gods, then they are tyrants or rather grumpy. I make fun of my idiocy of seeing the world musically all the time. Roger, why would I want to attack what you hold dear? My reason for joking is much simpler than oedipal stuff: My Inbox reads Monads, Monads this, Monads that, but actually Monads this and so I joke about gonads and Leibniz biscuits in X-mas time that are everywhere in Germany. But if you need to make a Freudian oedipal diagnosis, then tell me at least what I have to gain by attacking the previous generation on an internet list? The answer is easier than attack: laughing is nice, so I try. Cowboy On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy Every new generation attacks what the previous generation holds dear. Freud explained that in his theory of the Oedipal complex. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] rclo...@verizon.net] 12/11/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - *From:* Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-12-10, 09:43:52 *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God Hi Roger, On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Leibniz expressed what was logically necessary, not an opinion of God. And this itself was an opinion of god and produced a striking revelation in Leibniz: Contradiction. I have kicked my own monadology in its supreme gonad. This produced a depression and he went shopping for a new wig, asking himself: : How will people in a few hundred years remember my go... uhm... monads? This depression did not subside until Craig showed up as a Doctor from the future in a time machine called weak comp, yes I get it, but will never admit sense cannot be primitive because it is always relative, unlike the number I II III and so on. But because Craig is a nice guy and could sense, in perfect Jedi-scientific manner, a disturbance in the Leibnizean senso-motoricyclical-gonadial force. He took the time machine he hates to use and dressed as a doctor from the future.� He then met Leibniz, wearing a wig made from a soulless Lion (just chemical copy for appearance sake, above the soul substitution level for lions), which impressed and intimidated Leibniz and his budget Target goat hair wig so much, that he had an epiphany and stepped into a comp compliant time teleportation system, trusted the doctor Craig about the substitution level, and flew to the future to extort the CEO of the Bahlsen cookie company in Hanover: If you don't make chocolate cooki...uh...monads with precisely 52 rounded edges, and name them after me, then my intimidating goat wig with all its logical implications will bore you to death, kicking you in the metaphysical monads of the gonads, hmmkay? Needless to say, with history in view, the CEO complied. Thus today, any person and child in Germany with two Euros can walk into most stores and buy himself 12 monads with 52 rounded gonad edges each. They continuously enable a more joyous Christmas time sharing of precious moments with the hated loved ones of many Germans. The monads appease the family feuds with 52 gonads each, topped with some chocolate. If you doubt the scientific validity of this story, then just behold my proof: https://www.google.com/search?q=leibniz+cookieshl=enclient=firefox-ahs=IVQtbo=urls=org.mozilla:en-US:officialtbm=ischsource=univsa=Xei=_fPFUOvxF4mShge_nYHYDgved=0CDsQsAQbiw=1920bih=1034 Good winter/holiday season to everyone who is not a monadahole. Shitakefunshrooms, Cowboy � � [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] rclo...@verizon.net] 12/10/2012
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: but if the bet is laid open and reasoning somewhat sincere, then I'll listen to a mystic over some dull philosopher or scientist and their linguistic labyrinths any day. I do not even try to learn comedy. Yet I learn from mystics more than any credible scientist. Of course mystics have posed any number of contradictory realities. Because of this I rather intuitively rank each posed reality by the number and dignity of the mystics associated with a particular hypothetical reality. I lend more dignity to a mystic if he or she happens to be a scientist, or a mathematician, or a philosopher, including those associated with religion. I also look for underlying principles that make seemingly contradictory realities consistent, something Moses advised for his contradictory laws. So Plato was both philosopher and mystic. Leibniz, both mathematician and mystic. One might add Godel, Wheeler, even Witten, but not Newton. I certainly add Buddha, Jesus, even Swedenborg and the early schools of Hinduism, but not any Pope. For me what distinguishes a mystic is their possession of what I call insight, a property of advanced humans that allows them to see or sense a unique reality that is beyond scientific measurement in space and in time. The fact that Buddhists have sensed a lattice of seemingly entangled particles and that Leibniz seemingly arrived at the same conclusion logically (however I suspect he sensed that reality as well), and now that supersymmetric string theory SST has at least deduced the same reality, gives that reality IMO overwhelming credibility. I say SST deduced rather than derived because what happened to the extra dimensions are not (yet) derived from the theory. That no such mystic has sensed an MWI-type multiverse is also IMO meaningful. Yet it is clear that particles in the so-called particle/wave duality exist mostly as waves having numerous quantum states even in constrained systems like electrons in an atom. So what is the underlying principle that makes these contradictory realities, MWI quantum waves versus SWI physical particles, consistent?? (to be continued) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
On 11 Dec 2012, at 17:16, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: but if the bet is laid open and reasoning somewhat sincere, then I'll listen to a mystic over some dull philosopher or scientist and their linguistic labyrinths any day. I do not even try to learn comedy. Yet I learn from mystics more than any credible scientist. Of course mystics have posed any number of contradictory realities. Because of this I rather intuitively rank each posed reality by the number and dignity of the mystics associated with a particular hypothetical reality. I lend more dignity to a mystic if he or she happens to be a scientist, or a mathematician, or a philosopher, including those associated with religion. I also look for underlying principles that make seemingly contradictory realities consistent, something Moses advised for his contradictory laws. So Plato was both philosopher and mystic. Leibniz, both mathematician and mystic. One might add Godel, Hmm... Actually Gödel was not mystic. According to Hao Wang, Gödel did even regret all his life not having had any mystical insight and that he was was a bit jealous of Descartes on that matter. This shows he was certainly open to the idea that such kind of experiences exist of course. Wheeler, even Witten, but not Newton. Are you really sure about Newton? I certainly add Buddha, Jesus, even Swedenborg and the early schools of Hinduism, but not any Pope. For me what distinguishes a mystic is their possession of what I call insight, a property of advanced humans that allows them to see or sense a unique reality that is beyond scientific measurement in space and in time. The fact that Buddhists have sensed a lattice of seemingly entangled particles and that Leibniz seemingly arrived at the same conclusion logically (however I suspect he sensed that reality as well), and now that supersymmetric string theory SST has at least deduced the same reality, gives that reality IMO overwhelming credibility. I say SST deduced rather than derived because what happened to the extra dimensions are not (yet) derived from the theory. That no such mystic has sensed an MWI-type multiverse is also IMO meaningful. You might read type salvia reports. The many-alternate reality experience is quite common, even by people having never heard about Everett or CTM's consequences. People usually experience the many realities, but also the realities from which such many realities emerge, and many other things hard to describe. This proves nothing of course. Bruno Yet it is clear that particles in the so-called particle/wave duality exist mostly as waves having numerous quantum states even in constrained systems like electrons in an atom. So what is the underlying principle that makes these contradictory realities, MWI quantum waves versus SWI physical particles, consistent?? (to be continued) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
On 12/11/2012 9:33 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: Dear Roger, It's called an attempt at humor. I apologize if it didn't meet your standards: I am a learner in comedy, not a knower. A point here which puts my attempt at humor directly on topic: I ask myself whether everybody is a TOE? And is the ability to share that some measure for quality? By whose standards? Everybody breaks down the world into some set of primitives and looks at it through that lens + there is some truth to knowledge gleamed here, which can be shared and some that cannot. Monads, numbers, sense, quarks, humans, a great watch from descartes, the back of a turtle, and the plethora of new age perspectives and primitives: they might not obey the debatable laws of what constitutes an ontological, philosophical, or scientific argument... but if the bet is laid open and reasoning somewhat sincere, then I'll listen to a mystic over some dull philosopher or scientist and their linguistic labyrinths any day. I don't mind if they can express it formally or not. I raise the bar for TOE: not only must it address problems and be formally precise etc: It has to also be cool and have the gonads to laugh about itself. If we can't laugh at our own gods, then they are tyrants or rather grumpy. I make fun of my idiocy of seeing the world musically all the time. Roger, why would I want to attack what you hold dear? My reason for joking is much simpler than oedipal stuff: My Inbox reads Monads, Monads this, Monads that, but actually Monads this and so I joke about gonads and Leibniz biscuits in X-mas time that are everywhere in Germany. But if you need to make a Freudian oedipal diagnosis, then tell me at least what I have to gain by attacking the previous generation on an internet list? The answer is easier than attack: laughing is nice, so I try. Cowboy Hear Hear! -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
Hi Stephen P. King God is what/who is looking through the supreme monad, not the supreme monad itself. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/10/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-09, 13:05:26 Subject: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God On 12/9/2012 7:54 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Roger, The monads are collectively god Dear Roger and Richard, This is what I have come to believe about Monads as well. They are collectively God, they do not have an absolute hierarchy. Their relation is more like what we see in a neural network That's is likely what Newton would believe and most likely what Liebnitz really believed in but was afraid to express. Richard On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Newton believed in numbers but was still a christian. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/9/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
Hi Richard Ruquist No, the supreme monad is what God sees through and does through, but God is behind or above the supreme monad. Newton's God was something like that in that the universe was, in Newton's words, God's sensorium. But Newton had no systematic view of the universe-- no supreme monad or monads of any kind. Newton believed simply that things happened as if God's hand caused them to move. Leibniz expressed what was logically necessary, not an opinion of God. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/10/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-09, 07:54:53 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God Roger, The monads are collectively god That's is likely what Newton would believe and most likely what Liebnitz really believed in but was afraid to express. Richard On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Newton believed in numbers but was still a christian. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/9/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-08, 08:48:59 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God Roger, Comp or even just Peano arithmetic suggests that the monads do not need a god outside of themselves. Richard On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Referring as I did sometimes to the supreme monad as God was not technically correct, only a shorthand version. L's God is who/what perceives and does through the supreme monad. L's God is itself therefore not a monad, it's simply cosmic intelligence or the One. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/8/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-08, 07:49:27 Subject: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God Roger, In order to get a cosmic consciousness, an arithmetic of monads is required. No one monad has consciousness as L has said. Therefore isince God is one monad, it cannot be conscious and IMO therefore cannot be god. Richard On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist You say, God is the totality of all Monads and its creation is expressed on and in all of them. God is the agent that carries out this expression, for only He knows what they all are. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/8/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-06, 12:59:57 Subject: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 12/6/2012 7:52 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen, I slipped up, sorry. I usually avoid using the word God since that upsets many people. Instead, you can think of L's universe as a complete system with one control, the Supreme Monad (the One). It only needs one master controller, but that is necessary and more than that wouldn't work. Dear Roger, The way I see the idea, there is no need for a single central control or special monad. God is the totality of all Monads and its creation is expressed on and in all of them. I see the language that L used about a one God was merely a way to remain in the good graces of the Church. Hear, Hear [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
Hi Roger, On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Leibniz expressed what was logically necessary, not an opinion of God. And this itself was an opinion of god and produced a striking revelation in Leibniz: Contradiction. I have kicked my own monadology in its supreme gonad. This produced a depression and he went shopping for a new wig, asking himself: : How will people in a few hundred years remember my go... uhm... monads? This depression did not subside until Craig showed up as a Doctor from the future in a time machine called weak comp, yes I get it, but will never admit sense cannot be primitive because it is always relative, unlike the number I II III and so on. But because Craig is a nice guy and could sense, in perfect Jedi-scientific manner, a disturbance in the Leibnizean senso-motoricyclical-gonadial force. He took the time machine he hates to use and dressed as a doctor from the future. He then met Leibniz, wearing a wig made from a soulless Lion (just chemical copy for appearance sake, above the soul substitution level for lions), which impressed and intimidated Leibniz and his budget Target goat hair wig so much, that he had an epiphany and stepped into a comp compliant time teleportation system, trusted the doctor Craig about the substitution level, and flew to the future to extort the CEO of the Bahlsen cookie company in Hanover: If you don't make chocolate cooki...uh...monads with precisely 52 rounded edges, and name them after me, then my intimidating goat wig with all its logical implications will bore you to death, kicking you in the metaphysical monads of the gonads, hmmkay? Needless to say, with history in view, the CEO complied. Thus today, any person and child in Germany with two Euros can walk into most stores and buy himself 12 monads with 52 rounded gonad edges each. They continuously enable a more joyous Christmas time sharing of precious moments with the hated loved ones of many Germans. The monads appease the family feuds with 52 gonads each, topped with some chocolate. If you doubt the scientific validity of this story, then just behold my proof: https://www.google.com/search?q=leibniz+cookieshl=enclient=firefox-ahs=IVQtbo=urls=org.mozilla:en-US:officialtbm=ischsource=univsa=Xei=_fPFUOvxF4mShge_nYHYDgved=0CDsQsAQbiw=1920bih=1034 Good winter/holiday season to everyone who is not a monadahole. Shitakefunshrooms, Cowboy [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] rclo...@verizon.net] 12/10/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - *From:* Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-12-09, 07:54:53 *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God Roger, The monads are collectively god That's is likely what Newton would believe and most likely what Liebnitz really believed in but was afraid to express. Richard On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net+rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Newton believed in numbers but was still a christian. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net +rclo...@verizon.net] 12/9/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-08, 08:48:59 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God Roger, Comp or even just Peano arithmetic suggests that the monads do not need a god outside of themselves. Richard On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net+rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Referring as I did sometimes to the supreme monad as God was not technically correct, only a shorthand version. L's God is who/what perceives and does through the supreme monad. L's God is itself therefore not a monad, it's simply cosmic intelligence or the One. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net +rclo...@verizon.net] 12/8/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-08, 07:49:27 Subject: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God Roger, In order to get a cosmic consciousness, an arithmetic of monads is required. No one monad has consciousness as L has said. Therefore isince God is one monad, it cannot be conscious and IMO therefore cannot be god. Richard On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net+rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist You say, God is the totality of all Monads and its creation is expressed on and in all of them. God is the agent that carries out this expression, for only He knows what they all are. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net +rclo...@verizon.net] 12/8/2012 Forever
Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
On 10 Dec 2012, at 14:33, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King God is what/who is looking through the supreme monad, not the supreme monad itself. Nice! Even closer to CTM(*): God is what/who is looking through the supreme monads, not any supreme monad itself. Bruno (*) Alias comp, digital mechanism, CTM is for Computationalist Theory of Mind, and the yes doctor + Church thesis is among the weakest assumptions. CTM acronym might be better than comp to avoid confusion with computationalist physicalism (digital physics, DP) which is sometimes confused with comp. I have often explain why Digital Physics is self-contradictory (or made us into zombie, eliminate consciousness and first person). [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/10/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-09, 13:05:26 Subject: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God On 12/9/2012 7:54 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Roger, The monads are collectively god Dear Roger and Richard, This is what I have come to believe about Monads as well. They are collectively God, they do not have an absolute hierarchy. Their relation is more like what we see in a neural network That's is likely what Newton would believe and most likely what Liebnitz really believed in but was afraid to express. Richard On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Newton believed in numbers but was still a christian. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/9/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
Roger Bruno, How is consciousness related to god? It seems like the beginning of an infinite god regression. Richard On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 10 Dec 2012, at 14:33, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King God is what/who is looking through the supreme monad, not the supreme monad itself. Nice! Even closer to CTM(*): God is what/who is looking through the supreme monads, not any supreme monad itself. Bruno (*) Alias comp, digital mechanism, CTM is for Computationalist Theory of Mind, and the yes doctor + Church thesis is among the weakest assumptions. CTM acronym might be better than comp to avoid confusion with computationalist physicalism (digital physics, DP) which is sometimes confused with comp. I have often explain why Digital Physics is self-contradictory (or made us into zombie, eliminate consciousness and first person). [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/10/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-09, 13:05:26 Subject: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God On 12/9/2012 7:54 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Roger, The monads are collectively god Dear Roger and Richard, This is what I have come to believe about Monads as well. They are collectively God, they do not have an absolute hierarchy. Their relation is more like what we see in a neural network That's is likely what Newton would believe and most likely what Liebnitz really believed in but was afraid to express. Richard On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Newton believed in numbers but was still a christian. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/9/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
On 12/10/2012 8:33 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King God is what/who is looking through the supreme monad, not the supreme monad itself. Dear Roger, This is a contradiction of the relations between monads, there cannot be a special monad. Just as there is no 'center' on the surface of a sphere, there is no central monad whose percepts are a consistent unification of all of the percepts of all other monads. This is a subtle argument. Think of a list of all possible and different properties that can exist for a percept. Can this list be infinite and self-consistent? No! Do you know why? The idea of God as a 'supreme Ruler is foreign to Monads as they do not allow for such a hierarchy in their mereology. Every monad is, in a literal sense, God. -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
Richard, On 10 Dec 2012, at 16:17, Richard Ruquist wrote: Roger Bruno, How is consciousness related to god? It seems like the beginning of an infinite god regression. God = Truth (Plato). OK? With the CTM, arithmetical truth is enough (and a tiny provable part is enough for the ontology). I would say that consciousness is a form of knowledge. Knowledge intersects belief and truth. (It is a private undefinable notion, with CTM). The knower in you is the inner God, which is God restricted by the universal window of your brain/body. I don't know if God (truth) is conscious, but without God (truth) I doubt I could be conscious, even if most of the content of my consciousness is wrong (except on the indubitable fixed point, and perhaops the sharablke oart of math, arithmetic, perhaps). I have no certainties, and that is why I use the arithmetical translation of Plotinus in such conversation, with God = Arithmetical Truth Believable = (sigma_1) provable = universal (Löbian) machine Knowable = the same, but true (unlike proved) = the inner god = the universal soul intelligible matter = the same as 'believable, but together with consistence sensible matter = the same as intelligible matter, but as true That gives eight modalities, as they divided by incompleteness (except God and the Soul). If Gödel's incompleteness theorem was wrong, all those modalities would collapse. Despite the modalities extension is the same set of arithmetical propositions, the machine cannot knows that, and this change drastically the logic of the modalities. Roughly speaking, God obeys classical logic, the Universal Soul obeys intuitionist logic, and the two matters obeys (different) quantum logics, perhaps even linear (with some luck!) Bruno Richard On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 10 Dec 2012, at 14:33, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King God is what/who is looking through the supreme monad, not the supreme monad itself. Nice! Even closer to CTM(*): God is what/who is looking through the supreme monads, not any supreme monad itself. Bruno (*) Alias comp, digital mechanism, CTM is for Computationalist Theory of Mind, and the yes doctor + Church thesis is among the weakest assumptions. CTM acronym might be better than comp to avoid confusion with computationalist physicalism (digital physics, DP) which is sometimes confused with comp. I have often explain why Digital Physics is self-contradictory (or made us into zombie, eliminate consciousness and first person). [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/10/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-09, 13:05:26 Subject: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God On 12/9/2012 7:54 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Roger, The monads are collectively god Dear Roger and Richard, This is what I have come to believe about Monads as well. They are collectively God, they do not have an absolute hierarchy. Their relation is more like what we see in a neural network That's is likely what Newton would believe and most likely what Liebnitz really believed in but was afraid to express. Richard On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Newton believed in numbers but was still a christian. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/9/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr
Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Richard, On 10 Dec 2012, at 16:17, Richard Ruquist wrote: Roger Bruno, How is consciousness related to god? It seems like the beginning of an infinite god regression. God = Truth (Plato). OK? With the CTM, arithmetical truth is enough (and a tiny provable part is enough for the ontology). I would say that consciousness is a form of knowledge. Knowledge intersects belief and truth. (It is a private undefinable notion, with CTM). The knower in you is the inner God, which is God restricted by the universal window of your brain/body. I don't know if God (truth) is conscious, but without God (truth) I doubt I could be conscious, even if most of the content of my consciousness is wrong (except on the indubitable fixed point, and perhaops the sharablke oart of math, arithmetic, perhaps). I have no certainties, and that is why I use the arithmetical translation of Plotinus in such conversation, with God = Arithmetical Truth Believable = (sigma_1) provable = universal (Löbian) machine Knowable = the same, but true (unlike proved) = the inner god = the universal soul intelligible matter = the same as 'believable, but together with consistence sensible matter = the same as intelligible matter, but as true That gives eight modalities, as they divided by incompleteness (except God and the Soul). If Gödel's incompleteness theorem was wrong, all those modalities would collapse. Despite the modalities extension is the same set of arithmetical propositions, the machine cannot knows that, and this change drastically the logic of the modalities. Roughly speaking, God obeys classical logic, the Universal Soul obeys intuitionist logic, and the two matters obeys (different) quantum logics, perhaps even linear (with some luck!) Bruno, thanks. That helps alot. In case you have not already guessed I am trying to marry CTM, string theory and monadology/Indra'sJewels, in order to improve my paper on incompletenes/consciousness: http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf Richard On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 10 Dec 2012, at 14:33, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King God is what/who is looking through the supreme monad, not the supreme monad itself. Nice! Even closer to CTM(*): God is what/who is looking through the supreme monads, not any supreme monad itself. Bruno (*) Alias comp, digital mechanism, CTM is for Computationalist Theory of Mind, and the yes doctor + Church thesis is among the weakest assumptions. CTM acronym might be better than comp to avoid confusion with computationalist physicalism (digital physics, DP) which is sometimes confused with comp. I have often explain why Digital Physics is self-contradictory (or made us into zombie, eliminate consciousness and first person). [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/10/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-09, 13:05:26 Subject: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God On 12/9/2012 7:54 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Roger, The monads are collectively god Dear Roger and Richard, This is what I have come to believe about Monads as well. They are collectively God, they do not have an absolute hierarchy. Their relation is more like what we see in a neural network That's is likely what Newton would believe and most likely what Liebnitz really believed in but was afraid to express. Richard On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Newton believed in numbers but was still a christian. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/9/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options
Re: Re: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
Hi Richard Ruquist Newton believed in numbers but was still a christian. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/9/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-08, 08:48:59 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God Roger, Comp or even just Peano arithmetic suggests that the monads do not need a god outside of themselves. Richard On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Referring as I did sometimes to the supreme monad as God was not technically correct, only a shorthand version. L's God is who/what perceives and does through the supreme monad. L's God is itself therefore not a monad, it's simply cosmic intelligence or the One. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/8/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-08, 07:49:27 Subject: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God Roger, In order to get a cosmic consciousness, an arithmetic of monads is required. No one monad has consciousness as L has said. Therefore isince God is one monad, it cannot be conscious and IMO therefore cannot be god. Richard On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist You say, God is the totality of all Monads and its creation is expressed on and in all of them. God is the agent that carries out this expression, for only He knows what they all are. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/8/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-06, 12:59:57 Subject: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 12/6/2012 7:52 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen, I slipped up, sorry. I usually avoid using the word God since that upsets many people. Instead, you can think of L's universe as a complete system with one control, the Supreme Monad (the One). It only needs one master controller, but that is necessary and more than that wouldn't work. Dear Roger, The way I see the idea, there is no need for a single central control or special monad. God is the totality of all Monads and its creation is expressed on and in all of them. I see the language that L used about a one God was merely a way to remain in the good graces of the Church. Hear, Hear [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group
Re: Re: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
Roger, The monads are collectively god That's is likely what Newton would believe and most likely what Liebnitz really believed in but was afraid to express. Richard On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Newton believed in numbers but was still a christian. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/9/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-08, 08:48:59 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God Roger, Comp or even just Peano arithmetic suggests that the monads do not need a god outside of themselves. Richard On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Referring as I did sometimes to the supreme monad as God was not technically correct, only a shorthand version. L's God is who/what perceives and does through the supreme monad. L's God is itself therefore not a monad, it's simply cosmic intelligence or the One. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/8/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-08, 07:49:27 Subject: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God Roger, In order to get a cosmic consciousness, an arithmetic of monads is required. No one monad has consciousness as L has said. Therefore isince God is one monad, it cannot be conscious and IMO therefore cannot be god. Richard On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist You say, God is the totality of all Monads and its creation is expressed on and in all of them. God is the agent that carries out this expression, for only He knows what they all are. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/8/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-06, 12:59:57 Subject: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 12/6/2012 7:52 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen, I slipped up, sorry. I usually avoid using the word God since that upsets many people. Instead, you can think of L's universe as a complete system with one control, the Supreme Monad (the One). It only needs one master controller, but that is necessary and more than that wouldn't work. Dear Roger, The way I see the idea, there is no need for a single central control or special monad. God is the totality of all Monads and its creation is expressed on and in all of them. I see the language that L used about a one God was merely a way to remain in the good graces of the Church. Hear, Hear [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
On 12/9/2012 7:54 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Roger, The monads are collectively god Dear Roger and Richard, This is what I have come to believe about Monads as well. They are collectively God, they do not have an absolute hierarchy. Their relation is more like what we see in a neural network That's is likely what Newton would believe and most likely what Liebnitz really believed in but was afraid to express. Richard On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Newton believed in numbers but was still a christian. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/9/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
Hi Richard Ruquist You say, God is the totality of all Monads and its creation is expressed on and in all of them. God is the agent that carries out this expression, for only He knows what they all are. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/8/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-06, 12:59:57 Subject: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 12/6/2012 7:52 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen, I slipped up, sorry. I usually avoid using the word God since that upsets many people. Instead, you can think of L's universe as a complete system with one control, the Supreme Monad (the One). It only needs one master controller, but that is necessary and more than that wouldn't work. Dear Roger, The way I see the idea, there is no need for a single central control or special monad. God is the totality of all Monads and its creation is expressed on and in all of them. I see the language that L used about a one God was merely a way to remain in the good graces of the Church. Hear, Hear [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
Roger, In order to get a cosmic consciousness, an arithmetic of monads is required. No one monad has consciousness as L has said. Therefore isince God is one monad, it cannot be conscious and IMO therefore cannot be god. Richard On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist You say, God is the totality of all Monads and its creation is expressed on and in all of them. God is the agent that carries out this expression, for only He knows what they all are. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/8/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-06, 12:59:57 Subject: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 12/6/2012 7:52 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen, I slipped up, sorry. I usually avoid using the word God since that upsets many people. Instead, you can think of L's universe as a complete system with one control, the Supreme Monad (the One). It only needs one master controller, but that is necessary and more than that wouldn't work. Dear Roger, The way I see the idea, there is no need for a single central control or special monad. God is the totality of all Monads and its creation is expressed on and in all of them. I see the language that L used about a one God was merely a way to remain in the good graces of the Church. Hear, Hear [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
Hi Richard Ruquist Referring as I did sometimes to the supreme monad as God was not technically correct, only a shorthand version. L's God is who/what perceives and does through the supreme monad. L's God is itself therefore not a monad, it's simply cosmic intelligence or the One. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/8/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-08, 07:49:27 Subject: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God Roger, In order to get a cosmic consciousness, an arithmetic of monads is required. No one monad has consciousness as L has said. Therefore isince God is one monad, it cannot be conscious and IMO therefore cannot be god. Richard On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist You say, God is the totality of all Monads and its creation is expressed on and in all of them. God is the agent that carries out this expression, for only He knows what they all are. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/8/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-06, 12:59:57 Subject: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 12/6/2012 7:52 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen, I slipped up, sorry. I usually avoid using the word God since that upsets many people. Instead, you can think of L's universe as a complete system with one control, the Supreme Monad (the One). It only needs one master controller, but that is necessary and more than that wouldn't work. Dear Roger, The way I see the idea, there is no need for a single central control or special monad. God is the totality of all Monads and its creation is expressed on and in all of them. I see the language that L used about a one God was merely a way to remain in the good graces of the Church. Hear, Hear [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
Roger, Comp or even just Peano arithmetic suggests that the monads do not need a god outside of themselves. Richard On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Referring as I did sometimes to the supreme monad as God was not technically correct, only a shorthand version. L's God is who/what perceives and does through the supreme monad. L's God is itself therefore not a monad, it's simply cosmic intelligence or the One. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/8/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-08, 07:49:27 Subject: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God Roger, In order to get a cosmic consciousness, an arithmetic of monads is required. No one monad has consciousness as L has said. Therefore isince God is one monad, it cannot be conscious and IMO therefore cannot be god. Richard On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist You say, God is the totality of all Monads and its creation is expressed on and in all of them. God is the agent that carries out this expression, for only He knows what they all are. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/8/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-06, 12:59:57 Subject: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 12/6/2012 7:52 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen, I slipped up, sorry. I usually avoid using the word God since that upsets many people. Instead, you can think of L's universe as a complete system with one control, the Supreme Monad (the One). It only needs one master controller, but that is necessary and more than that wouldn't work. Dear Roger, The way I see the idea, there is no need for a single central control or special monad. God is the totality of all Monads and its creation is expressed on and in all of them. I see the language that L used about a one God was merely a way to remain in the good graces of the Church. Hear, Hear [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
On 08 Dec 2012, at 14:40, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Referring as I did sometimes to the supreme monad as God was not technically correct, only a shorthand version. L's God is who/what perceives and does through the supreme monad. L's God is itself therefore not a monad, it's simply cosmic intelligence or the One. Nice! Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/8/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-08, 07:49:27 Subject: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God Roger, In order to get a cosmic consciousness, an arithmetic of monads is required. No one monad has consciousness as L has said. Therefore isince God is one monad, it cannot be conscious and IMO therefore cannot be god. Richard On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist You say, God is the totality of all Monads and its creation is expressed on and in all of them. God is the agent that carries out this expression, for only He knows what they all are. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/8/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-06, 12:59:57 Subject: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 12/6/2012 7:52 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen, I slipped up, sorry. I usually avoid using the word God since that upsets many people. Instead, you can think of L's universe as a complete system with one control, the Supreme Monad (the One). It only needs one master controller, but that is necessary and more than that wouldn't work. Dear Roger, The way I see the idea, there is no need for a single central control or special monad. God is the totality of all Monads and its creation is expressed on and in all of them. I see the language that L used about a one God was merely a way to remain in the good graces of the Church. Hear, Hear [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
On 08 Dec 2012, at 14:48, Richard Ruquist wrote: Roger, Comp or even just Peano arithmetic suggests that the monads do not need a god outside of themselves. Hmm... we need to believe in some truth which might transcend us a little bit ... Arithmetical truth transcends *all* machines. Bruno Richard On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Referring as I did sometimes to the supreme monad as God was not technically correct, only a shorthand version. L's God is who/what perceives and does through the supreme monad. L's God is itself therefore not a monad, it's simply cosmic intelligence or the One. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/8/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-08, 07:49:27 Subject: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God Roger, In order to get a cosmic consciousness, an arithmetic of monads is required. No one monad has consciousness as L has said. Therefore isince God is one monad, it cannot be conscious and IMO therefore cannot be god. Richard On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist You say, God is the totality of all Monads and its creation is expressed on and in all of them. God is the agent that carries out this expression, for only He knows what they all are. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/8/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-06, 12:59:57 Subject: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 12/6/2012 7:52 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen, I slipped up, sorry. I usually avoid using the word God since that upsets many people. Instead, you can think of L's universe as a complete system with one control, the Supreme Monad (the One). It only needs one master controller, but that is necessary and more than that wouldn't work. Dear Roger, The way I see the idea, there is no need for a single central control or special monad. God is the totality of all Monads and its creation is expressed on and in all of them. I see the language that L used about a one God was merely a way to remain in the good graces of the Church. Hear, Hear [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email
Avoiding the use of the word God
Hi Stephen, I slipped up, sorry. I usually avoid using the word God since that upsets many people. Instead, you can think of L's universe as a complete system with one control, the Supreme Monad (the One). It only needs one master controller, but that is necessary and more than that wouldn't work. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 12/6/2012 7:52 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen, I slipped up, sorry. I usually avoid using the word God since that upsets many people. Instead, you can think of L's universe as a complete system with one control, the Supreme Monad (the One). It only needs one master controller, but that is necessary and more than that wouldn't work. Dear Roger, The way I see the idea, there is no need for a single central control or special monad. God is the totality of all Monads and its creation is expressed on and in all of them. I see the language that L used about a one God was merely a way to remain in the good graces of the Church. Hear, Hear [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
